 |
Readers' CornerOmbudsman Dave Mazzarella answers reader questions about Stars and Stripes. |
When a reporter writes what he sees
Posted February 19th, 2008 by Dave MazzarellaA Feb. 10 article by a Stars and Stripes reporter, written from Iskandariyah, Iraq, inspired two letters to the editor. Both expressed shock. One writer was shocked that Stripes would publish a report that supposedly made American soldiers look bad. The other was shocked by what the soldiers did.
Reporter Michael Gisick followed GIs into an Iraqi home and recorded what happened. A woman and her teenage daughter were in the home; on the wall was a poster with the face of controversial Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. When a sergeant showed irritation at seeing the poster, the teenage girl was dirisive, her words "dripping attitude." The story said some of the soldiers and their interpreter started calling her "a bitch," and one of them cut al-Sadr's countenance from the poster.
The first letter, from Sgt. Stephen Tressler in Baghdad, accused Stripes of "smearing our troops" by reporting what the soldiers called the girl and by showing them cutting the poster. The second letter, from Sgt. James P. Hallberg, of Support Area Anaconda, Iraq, did not complain about the reporting, but criticized the actions of the U.S. party. "Is this the behavior that's going to teach Iraqis about democracy and freedom of speech?" he asked.
Reporter Gisick wrote what he saw. Should a reporter always do that? The military poses few restrictions on embedded reporters; they are told to observe security considerations but otherwise their reporting is little fettered, or should be. In practice, most reporters avoid reporting gratuitous statements or actions they encounter -- those with no context of the circumstance being covered.
What the Stripes reporter witnessed, it seems to me, had context: Troops regularly interact with Iraqis, sometimes with some tension, and they can react to such episodes. The article in question was straightforward, without characterizing the troops' actions one way or another.
I asked the Middle East bureau chief, Joe Giordono, for his take on it. "We emphasize to our reporters: write what you see, without passing judgment on it, and putting it into context," he said. "So,l ironically, we sometimes get it from both sides: readers (mainly civilian) who think that embedded reporters are limited in what they write, and readers (mainly military) who think that embeds report too much."
Telling it like it is
The dilemma the Stars and Stripes faces every time it considers whether to publish a controversial story, or picture, such as the one you discuss here--one that elicited very contrasting reactions from two readers--reminds me of a recent series of reports in The New York Times, that according to many "made American soldiers [in this case veterans] look bad," but where others were shocked (perhaps a better word:saddened) by "what the soldiers [again, in this case, veterans] did."
The Times very prominently published a series of investigative reports about Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who have committed, or who have been charged with committing, murders after returning home. In those reports, The Times published some very eye-opening statistics about the veterans' documented and alleged killings that were not pretty.
Similar to The Stripes' case, the reports elicited some very contrasting reactions--a flood of them, as a matter of fact. Some condemned The Times for exaggerating the problem and for "portraying all veterans as unstable killers." Others praised The Times for shedding light on a problem that cried out for attention and for solutions. The Times Public Editor examined the articles, the background, the data and the public uproar and stated that The Times "made some missteps at the beginning of the series" and that "questionable statistics [did] muddy the message." But, generally, The Times stuck to its guns.
I personally can see how different people can react very differently to reports that "tell it like it is." War is not pretty, and at times--fortunately, a very, very few times-- the actions of a very, very few of our troops are not pretty either. But, in the end, reasonable Americans can take all this in and come to their own conclusions, usually correct ones--regardless of how The Stripes or The Times report the news. For example, the following was my reaction to the aforementioned Times report (hopefully with permission from The Times):
"Re 'Stories That Speak for Themselves' (Jan. 27):
There may be some basis for your concern about the use, or misuse, of statistics and of perceived trends in The Times' coverage of crimes committed by returning Afghanistan and Iraq veterans.
I also understand the discomfort and affront felt by some because of the perception that the focus may have been on “killer vets” rather than on a broken veterans’ health system and its effects.
Nevertheless, as an American who truly supports our troops, I hope that The Times' coverage of what is indeed a human tragedy will spur our government to increase efforts and financing to reverse such a perceived or real trend among our veterans — even if the veterans’ crime statistics compare favorably with the homicide rate in Any Town, U.S.A.
Dorian de Wind
Austin, Tex., Jan. 27, 2008
The writer is a retired Air Force major."